I have no idea how a few people in this thread completely misinterpreted Mike's post and then proceeded to personally attack him.
It's not on. I've deleted those posts.
Louie - did you report the post? Unfortunately not, and neither did anyone else until one member brought it to my attention.
The moderators don't read every single thread and every single post. If something is amiss and you want a moderator to look at it, then click the red X and report the post!
I will likely be moving to Caloundra very soon and I'm thinking that my only option really would be narrowband imaging. Just thinking of options; while I love my FSQ, my heart really lies in narrowfield deep sky.
H
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan gould
H
Im using a 10" GSO RC on a G11 with no problems.
Allan
I have no idea how a few people in this thread completely misinterpreted Mike's post and then proceeded to personally attack him.
It's not on. I've deleted those posts.
Louie - did you report the post? Unfortunately not, and neither did anyone else until one member brought it to my attention.
The moderators don't read every single thread and every single post. If something is amiss and you want a moderator to look at it, then click the red X and report the post!
Sorry Mike and moderators,I know you've got a tough job to do and also get on with life.
Paul
When I brought your image up on my laptop - which has different settings to my main frame, I found your image is absolutely full of very faint but impressive dust like "stuff" as in the lower RHS of your image. It certainly looks very real to me and it was quite surprising to see it (Galactic cirrus?).
I have grossly upped the gamma so that it appears more obvious - I hope you dont mind but it would appear to be real and not an artifact
Allan
That's a great image Paul, lots of great detail of a very interesting galaxy, not to mention other "background" galaxies - it bodes well for your new scope
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
The bulk of it looks liek galactic cirrus to me, the bottom right corner may eb something else but the rest looks liek dust.
Mike
I agree with Mike. I am in the process of collecting data on this as well (only luminance collected so far); having stacked and combined the luminance it appears that there is galactic cirrus all over the place here (including the bottom right in your image).
Paul
When I brought your image up on my laptop - which has different settings to my main frame, I found your image is absolutely full of very faint but impressive dust like "stuff" as in the lower RHS of your image. It certainly looks very real to me and it was quite surprising to see it (Galactic cirrus?).
I have grossly upped the gamma so that it appears more obvious - I hope you dont mind but it would appear to be real and not an artifact
Allan
Yep, the faint stuff in this extra-stretched image from Allan is in excellent agreement with my luminance data ... so Paul, I reckon we can both give our data a good stretching without fear of false gradients
Paul
When I brought your image up on my laptop - which has different settings to my main frame, I found your image is absolutely full of very faint but impressive dust like "stuff" as in the lower RHS of your image. It certainly looks very real to me and it was quite surprising to see it (Galactic cirrus?).
I have grossly upped the gamma so that it appears more obvious - I hope you dont mind but it would appear to be real and not an artifact
Allan
Interesting Allan. So perhaps that "tidal stream" I thought was arcing off the top of the spiral to the right is really cirrus? If Paul does extra exposure time it may become quite clear as to what that is.
Thanks everyone for the comments on the image so far. The amount of hours collected now might seem like a lot but remote imaging makes it easy to undertake, I set and go to bed, it works while I sleep. So more data will need to be collected for me to be really happy with the overall finished product. Next new moon with any luck I will have it all collected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
On a bit of a roll here, Paul.
I really like the star-studded field full of galaxies and bright stars. It just seems to work; and, then, the strange-shaped monster in the middle just sets it off.
Would the 10" version of these scopes (with a Feathertouch focuser dangling an STL-11000M on the back) be an issue for a G-11?
H
As Allan the 10 should be fine and work well with a G11, though it would be worth considering looking at another mount in the future. You might want to consider a rotator or an AOL (I have one of those for sale if you like). The rotator comes in handy a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allan gould
Paul
When I brought your image up on my laptop - which has different settings to my main frame, I found your image is absolutely full of very faint but impressive dust like "stuff" as in the lower RHS of your image. It certainly looks very real to me and it was quite surprising to see it (Galactic cirrus?).
I have grossly upped the gamma so that it appears more obvious - I hope you dont mind but it would appear to be real and not an artifact
Allan
Yes this is how I see it on my main processing screen which is a laptop too (shock horror I use a laptop to process ) It has a very sharp screen which shows noise really well and is well calibrated so it is my preferred screen.
I have subsequently given the data a slight stretch more just to show some more the dust/cirrus. So if you want take a look.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Fitz-Henr
That's a great image Paul, lots of great detail of a very interesting galaxy, not to mention other "background" galaxies - it bodes well for your new scope
I agree with Mike. I am in the process of collecting data on this as well (only luminance collected so far); having stacked and combined the luminance it appears that there is galactic cirrus all over the place here (including the bottom right in your image).
That is a great confirmation David. I was beginning to wonder whether I had that right. I look forward to your results. How many hours are you planning on collecting? You have a faster scope than me so I figure 30 hours would be perfect for you. I have four hours each on the colour but want another hour each. Also I only did 20 minutes for the colour and should have done 30 for the f ratio of the scope.
The mirror cell currently connects directly to the imaging train. On really heavy imaging trains some flex occurs. The mirror cell and rear adapters are being redesigned to take heavy loads. When I say heavy loads I mean like I have on the back of my scope. Loads half that weight will be fine with the current setup.
"With the standard truss RCs, the focuser is directly connected with the main mirror cell. With normal camera payloads, this works well. But collimation is more complicated because the focuser is adjusted together with the main mirror. With heavier cameras, the systems becomes more prone to adjustments. With this upgrade, we rework the whole telescope and equip it with a new focuser.
Advantages:
-- Significantly better 3" rack & pinion focuser with a quality close to the Starlight Feathertouch
-- No coupled focuser / main mirror system. Adjusting the main mirror does now not influence the focuser's situation.
-- A field correction for the focuser is installed (tilting mechanism with push-pull screws) "
Gday there, Paul,
In true Mad Galaxy Man fashion, I have, over the last few years, spent several days puzzling over the morphology of this galaxy, which proves to be unusual, in that there are numerous obvious asymmetries and non-planarities;
in NGC 2442, nothing is quite where you would expect it to be in a symmetric two-armed spiral!
I have finally got around to looking at your excellent image of N2442, which, in my view, is about as deep, or possibly somewhat deeper, than any other image that I have seen of this galaxy;
The extremely low-surface-brightness extensions of the long & narrow spiral arm (as opposed to the other arm, which is a broadened stub that has the appearance of having been lifted away from the principal plane of this galaxy), are detectable in your .jpg without special pleading or without straining my eyes.
There is also unusual ultra-faint material extending from the shorter of the two spiral arms, and I have never seen it as well as it is shown in your image.
All Barred Spiral galaxies are perturbed and asymmetric, to some extent, with the presence of one strong and one weak arm being typical and normal in a barred spiral. However, the difference between the two principal spiral arms can get very large, as it is in this galaxy.
There is some modelling around which ascribes the unusual morphology of NGC 2442 to some sort of interaction with another galaxy.
To me, the small S0 galaxy, at the bottom of your frame, with its two very-smooth but fairly well-defined arms, looks like a good candidate for the perturbing galaxy, but I will have to look in the literature to see what the prevailing ideas are on this topic.
In support of this hypothesis, one might imagine that the strongly symmetric spiral arms of the little S0 could have been caused by the interaction (this is regarded as a physically plausible mechanism for forming a strong two-armed spiral pattern)
Also, some of the small dwarfs in the field don't look massive enough to have modified the structure of NGC 2442 on a large scale.
Best Regards,
Robert Lang
Last edited by madbadgalaxyman; 29-03-2014 at 10:48 AM.
I further note that this galaxy was photographed at high resolution with the ESO 2.2 meter telescope: http://www.spacetelescope.org/images/heic1108b/
The shortened and broadened and "shredded" arm, that looks lifted away from the plane of this galaxy, is particularly striking in this image.
As for the various extensions or luminous materials that may or may not be in the field, as far as I can recall from my reading of the literature (I am always at least two years behind), there was no report of faint luminous material in the field.
There might be, but how to prove it? (the professionals usually hit the data with a heavy dose of statistics and mathematics to try to prove that they are really detecting something)
But it is very plausible that encounters between galaxies can remove stars from the galaxies themselves, and there are plenty of places in the universe where numerous intergalactic stars have been proven to exist
(notably, the faint intracluster/inter-galaxy light in the M84/M86 field)
The intracluster light is likely to be particularly elusive in groups of galaxies, and it is easier to detect in clusters of galaxies where repeated encounters between galaxies have removed large numbers of stars from the member galaxies.
Last edited by madbadgalaxyman; 29-03-2014 at 11:13 AM.
This image has an inspirational quality. I for one am inspired. Who needs the Hubble space telescope when one can by affordable Chinese RC scopes and produce spectacular results like this image?
I don’t think the imperfect corners and grain are worth obsessing over. I think that there is a danger that we become overly obsessed with the technical aspects of imaging and lose sight of what makes a great image. Great images can be technically imperfect or perfect. Terrestrial photographers often utilize grain and optical defects to help create great images. My hunch is that some people make the mistake of thinking that if they just get their technique right, they will produce great images. May be they will, may be they won’t. May be their images will be plain boring.
) It has a very sharp screen which shows noise really well and is well calibrated so it is my preferred screen.
